Pennsylvania judge upholds voter ID Law

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

CNN) - A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday decided not to restrict a controversial voter ID law from going into place.

The law, which requires voters to present a state issued photo ID, has been met with fierce opposition by those who claim that the law discriminates against minorities.

In the Keystone State, the issue has largely been divided along party lines. Republicans argue the new law helps to fight fraud, while Democrats make the case that the new law aids Republicans in the voting booth by limiting turnout by minorities in the crucial battleground state.

But Judge Robert Simpson, with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, on Wednesday issued an order expressing no constitutional reason to stop the law from taking effect, despite writing in his decision that he had "sympathy" for the witnesses.

"At the end of the day, however, I do not have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses or my esteem for the counsel. Rather, I must analyze the law, and apply it to the evidence of facial unconstitutionality brought forth in the courtroom, tested by our adversarial system," Simpson wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, the Advancement Project, and the law firm of Arnold & Porter will be appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to a statement from the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

"Given clear evidence that impersonation fraud is not a problem, we had hoped that the court would show greater concern for the hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised by this law," Witold 'Vic' Walczak, legal director for the state's ACLU, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania GOP chairman praised the judge's decision.

"I applaud the Commonwealth Court for displaying courage and conviction in this ruling. With sensational headlines and half-truths about this legislation being touted by partisan critics, we are fortunate that the Commonwealth Court realized that the sanctity of our elections was at stake – and took appropriate action to protect a cherished right," Rob Gleason said in a statement.

Pennsylvania represents a crucial battleground state this fall in the presidential election. While a Republican candidate hasn't won the state since 1988, the state made big GOP gains in recent years and has a Republican governor and one U.S. senator.

A recent poll released August 1 suggests President Barack Obama leads Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania by a margin of 53% to 42%, though Romney has in the past predicted he'll win the state in November.

In late July, the Justice Department began a formal investigation into whether the state's requirement violates civil rights laws, saying the state had 30 days to provide the requested documents.

Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated. To date the Justice Department has already filed suit against two states: South Carolina and Texas. Officials are awaiting a ruling by a panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., on a Texas case argued in early July. Judges have scheduled a hearing on the South Carolina case later this summer.

The Civil Rights Division has taken an aggressive approach to challenging voter photo-ID laws, which many Democratic and minority groups claim is an effort by Republican-controlled state governments to suppress voter turnout. Republicans have charged the challenges reflect purely partisan politics designed to enhance minority turnout at the polls.

– CNN's Ashley Killough, Terry Frieden, Karan Olson, Sarah Hoye and Carol Cratty contributed to this report.

I've no issue for photo required to vote.

Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated.

I did not know this. I thought it was across the board but it just deal with the former confederate states.

**d-usa**

I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.

Will be interesting to see how this turns out.

I do think this is one area where our judicial system sucks. Not the outcome (with which I don't agree with, but I'm no constitutional judge), but that it takes so long to get something decided. At this stage a court decision doesn't mean anything (no matter which side wins) because it can just get overturned at the next step only to be reversed again at the next step.

**whembly**

Jihadin wrote:

Spoiler:

CNN) - A Pennsylvania judge on Wednesday decided not to restrict a controversial voter ID law from going into place.

The law, which requires voters to present a state issued photo ID, has been met with fierce opposition by those who claim that the law discriminates against minorities.

In the Keystone State, the issue has largely been divided along party lines. Republicans argue the new law helps to fight fraud, while Democrats make the case that the new law aids Republicans in the voting booth by limiting turnout by minorities in the crucial battleground state.

But Judge Robert Simpson, with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, on Wednesday issued an order expressing no constitutional reason to stop the law from taking effect, despite writing in his decision that he had "sympathy" for the witnesses.

"At the end of the day, however, I do not have the luxury of deciding this issue based on my sympathy for the witnesses or my esteem for the counsel. Rather, I must analyze the law, and apply it to the evidence of facial unconstitutionality brought forth in the courtroom, tested by our adversarial system," Simpson wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, the Advancement Project, and the law firm of Arnold & Porter will be appealing to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to a statement from the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

"Given clear evidence that impersonation fraud is not a problem, we had hoped that the court would show greater concern for the hundreds of thousands of voters who will be disenfranchised by this law," Witold 'Vic' Walczak, legal director for the state's ACLU, said in a statement.

Meanwhile, the Pennsylvania GOP chairman praised the judge's decision.

"I applaud the Commonwealth Court for displaying courage and conviction in this ruling. With sensational headlines and half-truths about this legislation being touted by partisan critics, we are fortunate that the Commonwealth Court realized that the sanctity of our elections was at stake – and took appropriate action to protect a cherished right," Rob Gleason said in a statement.

Pennsylvania represents a crucial battleground state this fall in the presidential election. While a Republican candidate hasn't won the state since 1988, the state made big GOP gains in recent years and has a Republican governor and one U.S. senator.

A recent poll released August 1 suggests President Barack Obama leads Republican challenger Mitt Romney in Pennsylvania by a margin of 53% to 42%, though Romney has in the past predicted he'll win the state in November.

In late July, the Justice Department began a formal investigation into whether the state's requirement violates civil rights laws, saying the state had 30 days to provide the requested documents.

Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated. To date the Justice Department has already filed suit against two states: South Carolina and Texas. Officials are awaiting a ruling by a panel of federal judges in Washington, D.C., on a Texas case argued in early July. Judges have scheduled a hearing on the South Carolina case later this summer.

The Civil Rights Division has taken an aggressive approach to challenging voter photo-ID laws, which many Democratic and minority groups claim is an effort by Republican-controlled state governments to suppress voter turnout. Republicans have charged the challenges reflect purely partisan politics designed to enhance minority turnout at the polls.

– CNN's Ashley Killough, Terry Frieden, Karan Olson, Sarah Hoye and Carol Cratty contributed to this report.

I've no issue for photo required to vote.

Pennsylvania is the first state outside of the areas covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act designed to protect minorities in states with historic racial discrimination in voting, to be investigated.

I did not know this. I thought it was across the board but it just deal with the former confederate states.

Yup... all confederate southern states are under the purvue.

I think Florida recently won with Voter ID...

Texas was overturned pending appeal.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I don't see the problem with voter ID. The left screams about disenfranchising minorities, but if they're legal to vote they're legal to and I believe in most states by law required to have a state I.D.

Therefore the only people getting screwed here are people who aren't legally allowed to vote.

**whembly**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I don't see the problem with voter ID. The left screams about disenfranchising minorities, but if they're legal to vote they're legal to and I believe in most states by law required to have a state I.D.

Therefore the only people getting screwed here are people who aren't legally allowed to vote.

Whoa... that's logical.

I never understood the bruha on this either...

**gorgon**

I think the problem in PA is that the PA House majority leader said while ticking off a list of accomplishments "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/26/pennsylvania-lawmaker-sparks-fire-over-voter-id-comment/

Shoulda stuck with the "voter fraud" story. Because research has shown the fraud issue has been greatly exaggerated by the GOP. Not that the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the situation was reversed.

@KalashnikovMarine -- there's no PA law requiring every citizen to have official ID. Thousands in inner-city Philadelphia will be affected by this law, and that was absolutely its intent. Is mandatory state-issued ID common in other states?

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.

Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.

**whembly**

gorgon wrote:

@KalashnikovMarine -- there's no PA law requiring every citizen to have official ID. Thousands in inner-city Philadelphia will be affected by this law, and that was absolutely its intent. Is mandatory state-issued ID common in other states?

If they drive... driver's licence.

If they dont... how do they own a home or rent (you need valid IDs for that).

Do they rent from BlockBuster? Pretty sure you'd need a valid photo ID.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.

Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.

You can be pretty certain that another federal court is going to uphold voter ID in another state. Then you have two federal courts with different rulings, so a Supreme Court ruling will be required. If there is not going to be a Supreme Court case about voter ID within the next 2 years I will let your dachshund hump my legs

**KalashnikovMarine**

I guess it is, I mean where I'm from it's just something you do. Here in Colorado if you don't get your driver's license you get your state ID. Photo IDs are pretty important in modern society right? I can't think of a good reason to not have one.

I full admit this is not something I've really researched, because as I outlined my train of thought above, it's not something that requires much thought to me.

So these inner city type folks still aren't affected, cause they can go get a state ID, which as US Citizens they qualify for and probably should have to make life in general a little easier when trying to prove who they are or their age. I know I have my ID out at least four or five times a week.

**Howard A Treesong**

Perhaps only certain types of ID are accepted. Your Blockbuster card won't be, but things that are, like passports and driving license, tend to cost money which poorer minorities are less likely to have.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Well the point on the Blockbuster card is you need a photo id to get one in the first place I believe.

(is blockbuster still a thing on the east coast?)

**d-usa**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
So these inner city type folks still aren't affected, cause they can go get a state ID, which as US Citizens they qualify for and probably should have to make life in general a little easier when trying to prove who they are or their age. I know I have my ID out at least four or five times a week.

The problem is that for some, "just go get an ID" is not that easy.

**KalashnikovMarine**

Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.

**d-usa**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.

People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed).
People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).

Just some examples.

**gorgon**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:I guess it is, I mean where I'm from it's just something you do. Here in Colorado if you don't get your driver's license you get your state ID. Photo IDs are pretty important in modern society right? I can't think of a good reason to not have one.

I full admit this is not something I've really researched, because as I outlined my train of thought above, it's not something that requires much thought to me.

So these inner city type folks still aren't affected, cause they can go get a state ID, which as US Citizens they qualify for and probably should have to make life in general a little easier when trying to prove who they are or their age. I know I have my ID out at least four or five times a week.

You can get state IDs in PA also. But if you take the bus or subway and don't drive or fly, how often do you need or show someone your photo ID?

Part of the issue is that this was passed fairly recently. People are going to show up to vote just like they did in the last election and be turned away -- even though they're on the books -- because they didn't know about the change. That's gonna get *ugly*. I expect that local churches and various organizations are doing all they can to spread the word, and that 4 years from now it won't much of an issue. I also expect the Dem machine in Philly will prevent this from becoming a disaster for Obama. But there will be issues this November.

It's funny how the GOP I grew up with wasn't such a fan of things like forced government registration of its citizens, etc. Times change.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.

People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed).
People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).

Just some examples.

I just don't know what's with those "inner-city type folks." How do they even travel overseas without a passport?

**Chongara**

d-usa wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.

People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed).
People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).

Just some examples.

I had a hell of a hard time getting my ID simply because I never even went for my learner's permit as a teenager, and waited quite a while to get one. This was with access to transportation, no real job in the way, and ready financial support from my grandmother. It just turned out that my mother was terrible at keeping documents and I didn't have all the multiple forms of documentation the state wanted. When it came down to it, the worker at the RMV said "Well, I'm not really supposed to process it since this [birth certificate] isn't correct. However I'll give you a break and just let it through".

I can't imagine what this would be like for someone living paycheck to paycheck in retail, with no car and a couple of squealing carpet demons at home to take care of. Especially since unlike me a lot of them aren't going to look white enough for the people to go "I'll just give you a break and let it through".

**Jihadin**

Birth cert not notorized?

**Frazzled**

birth certificate not correct? The Birthers were right! Chongara is an alien! *

* A martian to be exact. I'm sure he's here to blow up the Earth because it obstucts his view of Venus.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.

Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.

You can be pretty certain that another federal court is going to uphold voter ID in another state. Then you have two federal courts with different rulings, so a Supreme Court ruling will be required. If there is not going to be a Supreme Court case about voter ID within the next 2 years I will let your dachshund hump my legs

The Supreme Court is never required to do anything.
Besides it would still be upheld.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Yes felons, illegal immigrants, I'd assume they'd have a problem there.

Felons can get an ID. So we're down to...

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:birth certificate not correct? The Birthers were right! Chongara is an alien! *

* A martian to be exact. I'm sure he's here to blow up the Earth because it obstucts his view of Venus.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.

Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.

You can be pretty certain that another federal court is going to uphold voter ID in another state. Then you have two federal courts with different rulings, so a Supreme Court ruling will be required. If there is not going to be a Supreme Court case about voter ID within the next 2 years I will let your dachshund hump my legs

The Supreme Court is never required to do anything.
Besides it would still be upheld.

Just like the usual crowd said that Obamacare would certainly be struck down.

**Frazzled**

People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor? You know you have to have ID to verify Medicare don’t you? You know most states (and this one actually) have portable ID vans that come to nursing homes etc. to register you.

People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed).
****If they have jobs they have an ID. That’s just silly willy.
People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).
****Get them. With great rights come great responsibility. If you can’t half ass it enough to get it together than you can’t half ass it enough to even moderately research the candidates or issues in the first place.

**labmouse42**

whembly wrote:If they drive... driver's licence.

If they dont... how do they own a home or rent (you need valid IDs for that).

Do they rent from BlockBuster? Pretty sure you'd need a valid photo ID.

If you require that someone has a ID to vote, then someone who does not have that ID cannot vote -- you have effectively blocked someone's ability to vote.

In order prevent this, you must provide free IDs to everyone who wishes to have them (at cost to the taxpayers). If these free IDs are easy to access, the danger of voter fraud has been prevented and everyone is a winner. (save the taxpayers who are now paying for the free IDs and the facilities to provide them)

However, when the locations offering free IDs are located in locations that are unpractical to reach and/or have unpractical hours of operation, then poor people cannot access them. Given the poor people living in cities are majority black people, then there is a legitimate case that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 will be broken.

The question that will be posed to the courts is this "Will these voter ID laws be targeted at preventing blacks from voting?"
I, for one, am very curious to see how this plays out in the courts.

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

**Jihadin**

Well since its outside the Civil Rights area of concern it will indeed be interesting to see how this turns out.

**Frazzled**

It won't play out. They lost. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.

**labmouse42**

Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor?

I mean no disrespect, but this statement sounds like you have never lived in a city without a car.

I lived in San Francisco for a number of years and did not own a car. When I wanted to see the doctor or went to work, I would take the public transit system (called MUNI or BART). When I wanted to vote, I would walk 2 blocks down to the local church to vote. When I wanted a beer, I would walk to the bar down the street then stagger home.
Most big cities are like this.

If the ID office was located 20 miles outside the city with no public transportation routes, they were effectively impossible for me to get to. I would have to travel to the closest BART line and then walk for 5-6 hours after that to reach the office.

That's how you make it impossible for someone living in an inner city to get an ID. If the ID office is in the city, then its no problem. Its when the office is set up so its impossible to practically reach for citizens its a problem.

**Easy E**

My biggest beef with Voter ID is that we now need to go create problems to solve, instead of actually solving the real problems we have.

I there have been a pretty small handful of voter fraud cases, but we are willing to risk disenfranchising large swathes of people to stop it?

Here are some numbers I found: http://www.pressandjournal.com/viewPointsDetail.aspx?ID=900

There is voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Here are some numbers to prove it:

• 4 = number of persons convicted of voter fraud in Pennsylvania since the year 2004, including the time when Gov. Tom Corbett was Attorney General. All four cases involved people registering when not eligible.

• 0 = number of persons convicted of a voter pretending to be someone he or she was not, in other words, the very thing the voter ID law is supposed to prevent, since the year 2004 including the time when Gov. Corbett was Attorney General.

• 20,000,000 = number of votes cast in Pennsylvania since 2004. That’s 4 cases of voter fraud divided by 20,000,000 votes cast, which is 1 case of voter fraud in 5,000,000 or 0.000002 percent of the votes cast. For those readers who are of a betting sort, the odds of winning a state lottery are much higher – 1 in 4,000,000 or 0.00000025 percent.

• 700,000 = the approximate number of Pennsylvania voters who do not have a valid PA driver’s license who are otherwise eligible to vote. According to the Washington Post, 11 percent of all Americans lack a photo ID, including 20 percent of voters younger than 29, 15 percent of those earning less than $35,000 per year and a full quarter of all African-Americans.

• 104-88 = Pennsylvania House vote total for the Pennsylvania voter ID law. All Republicans except 3 voted for the bill. Every Democrat voted against it.

Timothy DeWald is a former professor of mathematical sciences at Lebanon Valley College, Annville. He is also an ordained pastor

The whole thing looks super shady.

**Chongara**

Easy E wrote:
The whole thing looks super shady.

It's not remotely close to shady. In fact it's one of the most straightforward and transparent actions in a while. I don't think there is anything close to a hidden agenda or secret purpose with this law. It's been expilctly stated what this law is for.

**LordofHats**

We're gonna want to make some amendments eventually that take voting legislation out of the hands of the people being elected.

Yeah... Good luck with that...

**Frazzled**

labmouse42 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor?
I mean no disrespect, but this statement sounds like you have never lived in a city without a car.

If God had intended Man to live without automobiles He would not have created Carroll Shelby. You aren't some hippy pink underwear wearin long haired tree hugger are ya boy?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:birth certificate not correct? The Birthers were right! Chongara is an alien! *

* A martian to be exact. I'm sure he's here to blow up the Earth because it obstucts his view of Venus.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:I'm sure the appeal is already being filed and that this will end up in with the Supreme Court before it all ends.

Hah, helps to review. SCOTUS already opined on the law the the Penn law was copied from. It will be cert denied.

You can be pretty certain that another federal court is going to uphold voter ID in another state. Then you have two federal courts with different rulings, so a Supreme Court ruling will be required. If there is not going to be a Supreme Court case about voter ID within the next 2 years I will let your dachshund hump my legs

The Supreme Court is never required to do anything.
Besides it would still be upheld.

Just like the usual crowd said that Obamacare would certainly be struck down.

What part of SCOTUS already ruled do you not get?

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:People without transportation (often the poor or elderly) that can't go to the right offices to get the ID.
****Then how are they going to vote? How are they going to the doctor? You know you have to have ID to verify Medicare don’t you? You know most states (and this one actually) have portable ID vans that come to nursing homes etc. to register you.

There are a lot more polling stations than there are DMV's. And just because a van comes to your nursing home does not mean that it fixes the other points, such as not having the right papers for your ID.

Frazzled wrote:People with jobs that won't let them take off to go get the ID (when your job is closed then the DMV is closed).
****If they have jobs they have an ID. That’s just silly willy.

Many might work under the table and were never required to get ID. Others can have expired IDs.

Frazzled wrote:People who don't have the right documents to get their ID (elderly or poor who don't have access to certified copies of their birth certificates as an example).
****Get them. With great rights come great responsibility. If you can’t half ass it enough to get it together than you can’t half ass it enough to even moderately research the candidates or issues in the first place.

Yes, because the person without transportation or that can't get a day off from work has to find out what office 10 states over is responsible for their birth certificate and then go there in person to sign the right papers to get the birth certificate that allows them to get their ID.

On a related note, let me tell you this funny little story:

My dad was in the army, stationed in Germany where he married my mom. I ended up being born in a US Military hospital in Germany and spend the first 16 years of my life in Germany. I had my German birth-certificate, German passport and whatnot. The military issued a certificate of birth to a US national abroad to prove my US citizenship when I was born. 16 years later we moved to the US and applied for my passport. At this point all I had was my all my German ID documentation and a copy of my US certificate of birth abroad. But of course the copy wasn't good enough, they asked for an original document. Easy enough then, just ask for a new copy.

The Department of State said this is a military issue and they will have all my records, just contact them and get the paperwork from the base. So I guess in order to pick up the papers in person I would just have to travel back to Germany to get them. But luckily for me the base closed about 6 years earlier, so all the records were shipped to some warehouse and are probably hanging out in some salt-mine stateside. Well, after a lot of talking to the military and a couple months of searching by them it turns out that all records of my birth were lost. As far as the military is concerned I was never born.

Eventually it took a grand total of 4 months, getting both my parents who lived in two different states together to stand in front of a federal judge and sign an affidavit that I was really their child in order for me to get a passport, and that was pre-9/11. I still don't have a US birth certificate and if my passport is ever lost I can look forward to a giant headache.

But yes, everybody can just get ID just like that. And if they can't then they must be lazy or dumb or useless and shouldn't vote to begin with